Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

high roller, the cyclist does get to determine safe road position under FRAP rules and there is no ongoing legal onus to operate a bike in this manner. a cyclist simply rides vehicularily and they concurrently ride FRAP.

FRAP is vehicular bicycling in a nutshell.

the courtroom wrangling and police/ public bias aside, states defining bicyclists vehicular road operation as FRAP is not in and of itself discriminatory or unvehicular IMO.

but when jokers like you and steve get to spinning yarns, lying and marginalizing what FRAP actually means, all bets are off.

the courtroom wrangling and police/ public bias aside, states defining bicyclists vehicular road operation as FRAP is not in and of itself discriminatory or unvehicular IMO.

But in your opinion, how important is the highlighted issue above? And how important is it to push for legislation that minimizes that bias?

I concur with your position that the common law interpretation of FRAP is on the cyclist's side. Based on my own observations in tax law it is worthwhile to push for statutory changes that make common law rulings explicit since common law can and does change. This is one reason, IMO, to push for certain versions of "vulnearable-road-user" laws that can be redundant with respect to common law interpretations of other laws.

HB1451: "§ 20-171.3A. Bicycle lanes.
(a) For purposes of this section, "bicycle lane" means a portion of the roadway or a paved lane separated from the roadway that has been designated by striping, pavement markings, and signage for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
(b) Whenever a bicycle lane has been provided adjacent to a roadway, operators of:
(2) Bicyclists are required to ride in the bicycle lane except when necessary to pass another person riding a bicycle or to avoid an obstruction in the bicycle lane. However, bicyclists may ride on the roadway when there is only an adjacent recreational bicycle path available instead of a bicycle lane."

"except when necessary to pass another person riding a bicycle or to avoid an obstruction in the bicycle lane."

Yikes! There's no exception for preparing for a left turn.

Mandatory bike lane laws are unnecessary, at best. A ride right rule, whether bicycle specific or general, requires bike lane use much of the time, anyway, making a mandatory bike lane law redundant. A mandatory bike lane law that lists all the important exceptions winds up being mostly a list of exceptions.

A California law lists permitted movements from a bicycle lane:

California § 21208 Permitted movements from established bicycle lanes
(a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.

------------

HB1451: "§(1) Motor vehicles may not block the bicycle lane to bicycle traffic and shall yield to a bicyclist in the bicycle lane before entering or crossing the lane;"

Motorists should be encouraged to merge into the bike lane before turning right (last I checked, this is what the Missouri Driver's Guide recommends). It's parking in the bike lane (or unnecessarily blocking a bike lane when not making a right turn) that should be illegal, not blocking the bike lane when making a turn. Indeed, motorists should block the bike lane to make a turn in order to discourage bicyclists from dangerous passing to the right of right-turning traffic-- a primary cause of 'right hook' accidents.

I'll second the notion that while FRAP is a good idea, motorists who are aware of such laws will interpret it to mean that they have the right to force bicyclists as far right as they wish. Widespread knowledge of such laws in the motoring public will make this sensible principle the equivalent of a weapon to be used against us.

FRAP most emphatically DOES NOT establish the 'far right' as a cyclists legal default position.

You are technically correct but, as others have said, bicycle-specific FRAP laws lend themselves to misinterpretation. None of the mandatory laws, mandatory ride right, mandatory bike lane or mandatory sidepath are good for bicyclists. They all potentially either make safe bicycling illegal or take away from bicyclists the rights of other road users.

In the minds of many, bicycle specific FRAP laws do establish far right as the default position for bicyclists.

While that's not what most FRAP laws say, it is how many people read them. Even some bicyclists read them that way.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRA

While that's not what most FRAP laws say, it is how many people read them. Even some bicyclists read them that way.

yes, and what's disturbing to me is when cycling advocates misinterpret them to the rest of us by writing 'establishes far right as the default position' and other such marginalizing screed.

I mean, REALLY! some of these people are LCI's for gosh sakes!

and why should the law be in conflict with how to operate a bicycle when FRAP is vehicular operation of a bicycle in a nutshell? if a state can most clearly define how a bicycle physically operates relative to other road and traffic conditions with a FRAP law, why the deceit?

I understand the empowerment language in the 'bikes operate in rightmost lane' wording but also recognize the discretion allowed from FRAP. this wide discretion inherent in FRAP- indeed, FRAP is the very embodiment of vehicular destination/safety positioning- should be visibly EMPHASIZED by bicycling advocates, not spun into something it is not.

Do you agree that the cyclist, and only the cyclist, has the right to determine his or her optimal position on the road, based on the conditions prevailing at a particular time and place?

It must be the case that there is some "reasonableness" standard to lane position. So technically, it will still be the judge that determines whether a position is practicable. By my judgement, that reinforces the idea that common reasons for not riding as far right as possible be enumerated and part of the statute.

Bicycle Lanes
It's parking in the bike lane [...] that should be illegal, not blocking the bike lane when making a turn.

Note that some North Carolina municipalities, faced with opposition from neighborhood residents to addition of bike lane stripes to existing residential neighborhood streets where on-street parking is common, explicitly allow parking in some or all bike lanes at some or all times. This allowance was made in order for the bike lane striping proponents to obtain striping on as many streets as possible.

If the state of North Carolina were to prohibit parking in bike lanes, the local laws allowing such would be be invalidated, because it is explicitly against state law for localities to have local traffic laws that conflict with the state traffic laws.

This would make many residents very angry, and most likely result in removal of bike lane striping on many local residential streets. Since the local bike lane striping proponents don't want this, I suspect that bike lane striping proponents in NC may argue against having state law prohibit parking in bike lanes. We'll see.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by invisiblehand

It must be the case that there is some "reasonableness" standard to lane position. So technically, it will still be the judge that determines whether a position is practicable. By my judgement, that reinforces the idea that common reasons for not riding as far right as possible be enumerated and part of the statute.

in my nearly 40 years of riding bikes in this country i have NEVER had a judge determine the practicability of my lane position-

TECHNICALLY, the reasonable standard is applied by the bicyclist. only if a lunk-headed, ignorant LEO gets involved would a judge enter the picture.

so TECHNICALLY you are incorrect, invisiblehand, as riders determine their practicable road position every moment they ride without a judge getting involved.

and TECHNICALLY you are incorrect to call the wording 'as far right as possible it's as far right as practicable which is something different altogther.

why does a guy so self styled erudite to consider himself a part time epistemologist commit such a blatant error of misinterpretation and marginalization?

Again, FRAP is vehicular safety/destination positioning in a nutshell and should not be marginalized by bicyclists.

FRAP most emphatically DOES NOT establish the 'far right' as a cyclists legal default position.

The FRAP laws state that cyclists can move to the left if there is a "safety" justification for doing so. While there's a wide-latitude of what "safety" means to the cyclist, the meaning doesn't include any reason. That is, "just because I feel like it" would fail as a justification.

Since the cyclist has to have a reason not to ride FRAP, why doesn't FRAP define the right as the default position absent a reason?

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

FRAP and "practicable" EXPRESSLY MEAN, LEGALLY, "only as far right as is able to be safely put into practice at the time"- and this is why the statutes say 'practicable,' to allow reasonable leeway in determining lateral road position.

this IS NOT considered to be the right edge,the far right, or as far right as possible - as the above jokers sgoodri, high roller, or invisible hand would like you to believe.

that type of talk is misinterpretation and marginalization of what is allowed cyclists under FRAP.

FRAP and "practicable" EXPRESSLY MEAN, LEGALLY, "only as far right as is able to be safely put into practice at the time"- and this is why the statutes say 'practicable,' to allow reasonable leeway in determining lateral road position.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist

this IS NOT considered to be the right edge,the far right, or as far right as possible - as the above jokers sgoodri, high roller, or invisible hand would like you to believe.]

"As far right" means the "right edge" of the roadway if there is no (reasonable) safety consideration.

you forgot to include 'as practicable' which is where discretionary leeway is expressly provided.

Actually, since I included "safety considerations", I included (effectively) "as praticable".

As far as I can tell, "as practicable" is entirely determined by "safety considerations". The "discretionary leeway" is based on safety considerations and does not include (for example) "because I feel like it". Of course, what is practicable for one rider isn't necessarily the same as for another.

(Note that there are some explicit exceptions, eg, passing, to the requirement "to ride as far right as possible" but we aren't discussing those.)

Thus, absent any safety considerations, it is "practicable" to ride at the right edge.

why does a guy so self styled erudite to consider himself a part time epistemologist commit such a blatant error of misinterpretation and marginalization?

Judging from the posts in the thread, one might believe that you are the one blatently misinterpreting language.

Regardless ...

... if you get pulled over -- it does happen -- you have to convince the LEO that your actions/judgements were reasonable. If you subsequently get a ticket -- it does happen -- you need to convince the judge that your actions/judgements were reasonable. Neither of these two hurdles are negligible nor terribly rare, IMO.

In fact you yourself write "reasonable leeway". So why is the hysterical response necessary?

Have you read Bob Mionske's book? He discusses FRAP in a practical sense. From memory, he writes that there is some meaningful variation across the states in the wording of the FRAP statutes but focuses his discussion on UVC.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the part time epistemologist

Have you read Bob Mionske's book?

I was going to ask the same of you.

his first three sentences on the topic reads as follows (embolding added for emphasis) "A common mistake made by law enforcement officers (and others )(you, invisiblehand!!!) is to interpret the requirement "as close as practicable to the right" to mean as close as possible. So if practicable means 'possible', why wouldn't the state legislatures just say as close as possible?'

Because practicable doesn't mean possible."

Bob Mionske goes on to clarify the empowerment and reasonableness of FRAP.

Again, FRAP is vehicular safety/destination positioning in a nutshell and should not be marginalized by bicyclists.

How is a bicycle-specific within-lane FRAP an asset to safety? It seems to me to be almost entirely about convenient passing, primarily for non-bicyclists. It's a courtesy worth extending often, but a courtesy no less.

If there is nobody behind the cyclist, riding FRAP rather than in the middle of the lane is almost certainly less safe due to reduced visibility, reduced maneuvering space, and worse exposure to surface hazards such as broken glass. Yet the FRAP laws require FRAP positioning at all times regardless of traffic behind.

At face value, FRAP language implies that the cyclist must operate at the margin of what he or she can manage, rather than at the optimum position for safety, comfort, and convenience.

This is why some cycling advocates like John Franlkin prefer to label the center of the lane the "primary" or "default" position and the edge "secondary."

If there is nobody behind the cyclist, riding FRAP rather than in the middle of the lane is almost certainly less safe due to reduced visibility, reduced maneuvering space, and worse exposure to surface hazards such as broken glass. Yet the FRAP laws require FRAP positioning at all times regardless of traffic behind.

It could at times be less safe to be in the middle of the lane especially on roads where cars travel at high speeds.

If you wait to move right only when there is a car behind you, the car tends to accelerate abruptly, which doesn't doesn't seem that "optimal" to me.

It could at times be less safe to be in the middle of the lane especially on roads where cars travel at high speeds.

The inability to know which kinds of errors other drivers may make is why I prefer that the law leave it completely up to the cyclist. On very high speed roads with wide lanes and significant traffic I do typically stay on the rightmost side of the lane, but that is as much about courtesy as safety.

On deserted roads I ride in the middle of the lane most of the time regardless of lane width. I may also be riding to the left of another cyclist under such situations. On most neighborhood streets I often find myself in the middle of the lane because I am traveling near the posted speed limit. There's a lot more context that applies to preferred cycling position than the general public will ever infer from a typical bicycle-specific FRAP law.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sggoodri

\
If there is nobody behind the cyclist, riding FRAP rather than in the middle of the lane is almost certainly less safe due to reduced visibility, reduced maneuvering space, and worse exposure to surface hazards such as broken glass. Yet the FRAP laws require FRAP positioning at all times regardless of traffic behind.

BZZZT! INCORRECT, captain. the UVC's FRAP wording has no such requirement. and bikes ARE traffic, dontchya know. bikes CAN determine the speed of traffic. however, more importantly,

the UVC only requires FRAP in the presence of faster traffic.

..."Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place...

really, steve! are you that insistent to continue to mislead and marginalize, to misinterpret the law yourself???

you should be ashamed at your continued misrepresentation of bicyclists existing rights in this country and what the laws, as they stand, are explicit about bicyclists legal road position.

On deserted roads I ride in the middle of the lane most of the time regardless of lane width.

It's not clear that this is "amost certainly" (stated) safer in "all" (implied) cases. A driver on a "deserted" road is probably not expecting a slow cyclist in the middle of a lane (and that driver might be driving at an excessive speed too).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sggoodri

I may also be riding to the left of another cyclist under such situations.

Of course, if you are riding to the left of another cyclist, you are reducing the area you can maneuver in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sggoodri

On most neighborhood streets I often find myself in the middle of the lane because I am traveling near the posted speed limit.

I think this is reasonable. Some (most?) state laws allow it explicitly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sggoodri

There's a lot more context that applies to preferred cycling position than the general public will ever infer from a typical bicycle-specific FRAP law.

Yes, the FRAP law doesn't help the "general public" from "inferring". But the absence of a FRAP law isn't going to help them do this either.

No kidding. My point of using the words practicable and possible is that one has to explain the difference between the two -- either to a judge or LEO -- unless the statutes are clear (or make it more likely that FRAP is correctly interpreted and enforced). Mioske writes that too.

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

and MY point is:

ALL YOU BICYCLISTS STOP MARGINALIZING what as far right as practicable means, legally describes and allows bicyclists. you misinterpret it to others, steve pretends the statutes states things it does not.

as far right as practicable is the perfect embodiment of the principles of vehicular cycling, and you yahoos wish to misinterpret it to other cyclists?

that line of talk stinks. STOP LYING TO THE OTHER BICYCLISTS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by invisiblehand

one has to explain the difference

really? I didn't explain anything to anyone on my ride home tonight. i've personally never had to explain my riding position to a law enforcement officer, ever, in my 4 decades of cycling, and i ride pretty far into the lane.

oh, you mean, perry mason, courtroom hysterics.

Steve may want comment about his criticism of the bill being proposed in NC, and my criticism of him is to STOP MARGINALIZING and misinforming the public about what FRAP statutes are-

the simplest embodiment of vehicular cycling safety and destination positioning all wrapped up in a simple nutshell- FRAP.

I've NEVER had to "explain the difference" to a policeman or judge. I ride using the vehicular cycling positioning maxim " as far right as practicable as safety allowances and destination positioning allows at any given point and time dependent on traffic and roadway dynamics"

the real sticky wicket is: states still need to define where and how a bicycle will position themselves in a wide lane in the presence of other traffic. FRAP does that while not encumbering the bicyclist unduly.

cyclists need to make this clear to ourselves and others that FRAP is not mandatory lane sharing, not far right as possible, not a substandard or unsafe position. it can be 14 feet out in an 18 foot lane and even the middle of the road in the presence of traffic, much less when there is no other traffic present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgoodri

... Yet the FRAP laws require FRAP positioning at all times regardless of traffic behind.

(really steve - misstating what is allowed bicyclists when there is no other traffic present? cyclists don't NEED your kind of 'interpretation' of the UVC if you can so blatantly lie about it in here.)

ALL YOU BICYCLISTS STOP MARGINALIZING what as far right as practicable means, legally describes and allows bicyclists. you misinterpret it to others, steve pretends the statutes states things it does not.

I have not misinterpreted anything. However, you're doing a good imitation of the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand.

Hey ... this sounds like a common complaint that facilities/engineering people lay on the hardcore VC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist

oh, you mean, perry mason, courtroom hysterics.

That is right. We are all waiting for you to stop.

Since you read Mionske, you should also remember a discussion on what to do if ticketed in the section on FRAP (where to ride in the road). Was he just trying to kill trees or address a problem that he observes?